Carlisle Shoe Co. v. Societe Anonyme: Roger Fare & Cie

• Decision Date: 24 May 1960
• Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 6553.
• Citation: 278 F.2d 519,47 CCPA 966
• Parties: CARLISLE SHOE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SOCIETE ANONYME: ROGER FARE & CIE, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

47 CCPA 966, 278 F.2d 519 (1960)

CARLISLE SHOE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SOCIETE ANONYME: ROGER FARE & CIE, Appellee.

Patent Appeal No. 6553.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

May 24, 1960.

William E. Schuyler, Jr., Andrew B. Beveridge, Washington, D. C. (Francis C. Browne, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.

Robert E. Burns, New York City, for appellee.

Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Associate Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK.¹

WORLEY, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Patents, acting for the Commissioner, reversing the decision of the Examiner of Interferences, and dismissing appellant's opposition to appellee's application for registration of a composite mark comprising a plume and thistle background design together with the words "Le Gant Mademoiselle," as a trademark for gloves made of leather, fabric, and combinations thereof. The opposition is based on appellant's ownership of a long prior registration, No. 346,290, dated May 18, 1937, of "Mademoiselle" as a trademark for ladies' shoes made of leather, fabric, and combinations of those materials. The Commissioner found that in view of the differences between the marks and the goods of the parties "there is no likelihood of confusion or mistake or deception of purchasers within the purview of the statute."

However, it was the examiner's position that ladies' shoes and gloves are closely related, generally sold in the same stores, and frequently purchased and used together as accessories to complement a particular costume. We agree with the examiner that the goods are so related that their sale by different parties under substantially similar marks would likely lead purchasers to suppose that they emanated from the same source. See In re Keller, Heumann & Thompson Co., Inc., 81 F.2d 399, 23 CCPA 837, and General Shoe Corp. v. Lerner Bros. Mfg. Co., Inc., 254 F.2d 154, 45 CCPA 872.

Turning to the similarity of the marks, applicant's mark appropriates "Mademoiselle," the entire registered mark of appellant. While it adds the words "Le Gant," which mean "The Glove" in French, those words are merely descriptive of appellee's goods, even though, as noted by the Commissioner, their descriptive significance might not be recognized as such by the average purchaser. The words "Le Gant" are displayed less prominently than "Mademoiselle," with the latter enclosed by quotation marks which suggests that it is the name by which the product is to be identified.

Applicant's mark also includes a plume and thistle background design, but that appears to be no more than an ornamentation physically separated from the words so that it would not necessarily be regarded as...